§ Mr. TookeThe object of the notice I have to submit to the House is to renew the resolution of February 26, 1830, with the addition of words carrying out the spirit of that resolution, purporting that neither the Member himself, nor any person in partnership with him, shall be engaged in transacting the private business of the House for pecuniary reward, whether such reward be received by the Member or by such partner, although by some collateral agreement the Member shall not participate in the profits of the Parliamentary business. Without, therefore, mooting the point of construction of the resolution as it now stands, and disembarrassing the question of all party feeling or personal application, it appears to me that there is no alternative between rescinding the resolution or of extending it as I propose; and I am clearly of opinion, that the latter is the course we should pursue. The profession have hitherto, as a body, to my certain knowledge, held that the resolution operated to preclude such qualified partnerships; and if once it is known that it does not, sure I am that there are several active and intelligent men among my professional brethren who will avail themselves of the latitude thus allowed to carry on a most lucrative concern. I know it may be alleged that there is no preventing near relations, or even friends, from engaging in the same course, without any tie of partnership; but this could never be carried on, or continued on the same scale of advantage as by an existing partnership, which allows of such constant and confidential intercourse as would give every facility for undue influence; indeed, as it is, a very thin partition divides us from an active, clever class of men, any one of whom obtaining by means of a limited partnership with a Member, a locus standi within these walls, would largely benefit by the connexion, and I had rather see a measure for rendering a practising solicitor ineligible to sit in this House than leave a door open for the flagrant abuse that might otherwise ensue. My sole motive is to protect professional respectability and Parliamentary integrity as regards Members of this House, and any one who aspires to the highest distinction which an Englishman can attainߞa seat in this 801 assemblyߞshould, as far as in him lies, preclude the possibility even of any imputation attaching to his conduct in it, by resorting to expedients for evading or escaping the obvious intention of the resolution. It has and may be said that the late Sir James Graham and Mr. Smith of Drapers'-hall were, while in Parliament, connected in partnership with firms transacting Parliamentary business. I doubt the fact; but this I know, that both those gentlemen had died or retired from Parliament long before 1830, when the resolution was passed, and therefore their conduct whatever it may have been, did not fall within the view since taken by the House of such proceedings. Having thus endeavoured to state my views, I beg leave to moveߞ" That it is contrary to the law and usage of Parliament that any Member of this House should be permitted to engage, either by himself or any other person, in the management of private Bills before this or the other House of Parliament for pecuniary reward, to be received by such Member, or by any person standing in any relation or partnership with him."
§ Sir Frederick Pollockobserved, that he had no desire to get rid of the important question brought forward by the hon. Member for Truro by moving the previous question, or that the House do proceed with the orders of the day, or indeed by any side wind. Neither had he any desire to meet the proposition by a direct negative, but, at the same time, if he was to be called upon at once to give an opinion whether the resolution ought to pass or not, he must give it his negative to-night. He hoped, however, that the House would not be forced to come to a hasty decision upon the subject. He could not avoid directing the attention of the House to a few cases, with respect to which the adoption of the resolution would be most objectionable. In the first place, he did not think the words were proper to meet the case lately brought under the attention of the House, with reference to the hon. Member for Penryn, who was admitted to have acted bonâ, fide, and without the slightest stain on his reputation. He thought it would be more desirable to avoid involving the House in a resolution that such a course of conduct was contrary to the laws and usages of Parliament. In the next place, he thought the resolution would, in effect, go much further than his hon. Friend himself in- 802 tended. Was his hon. Friend aware that by a somewhat recent statute partnerships might be formed with reference to joint-stock banking? Many hon. Members doubtless held shares in the joint-stock banks, and under this resolution they must either get rid of their shares and partners, or see that the list of shareholders did not contain the name of any solicitor, and if so, they must take care he was not engaged in Parliamentary practice. The same remark would apply to the partners in extensive breweries of whom he knew, it not unfrequently happened that an attorney was one of them. Was his hon. Friend prepared to say, that any Member of the House, one of a brewing firm, having a partner who was in the profession, should be obliged to get rid of that partner, or take care that he had nothing to do with Parliamentary business? He hoped his hon. Friend would consent to adjourn the further discussion of the matter, as he (Sir F. Pollock) wished to have an opportunity of communicating with the members of the profession upon it, and of seeing if some better mode of meeting the difficulties of the case could, not be devised and adopted. He had no desire to stifle the matter, which he admitted to be of importance, but if compelled to express an opinion upon it now, he should feel himself compelled to give it his decided negative. He would, however, now move that the question be adjourned to this day fortnight.
§ Mr. Tookesaid, he should be happy to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, if he could be insured a certain day on which the subject should be discussed. Therefore if this day fortnight were set apart for it, he should be most happy on that understanding now to adjourn the consideration of the proposition.
§ Debate adjourned.